debate

@songofsisyphus I had some problems over logging to MO friday and yesterday. To make matters worse when I was writing my rebuttal, lights went out and I lost it, so I'll salvage it again. I will leave this as it is, not before laying a giant last response. Well. That's personal of both of us. I abhor Fascism's means, but it is undeniable Fascism is but Traditionalism on steroids and Roman Paganism. I believe the Right must accept Fascism is a Right-wing Ideology rather than to try and distance themselves from it like the plague. It is a plague on our side, we must accept our vices, period. Treating minorities as human beings isn't enabling their resentment to the dominant classes, for they will want their share of the cake called Power. If minorities get too powerful, majorities will relent or want their share of power (as People). Centralized power is a problem, of course, but an overly fragmentalized distribution is as hazardous to society as it gives a country no objective light to follow. That's my issue with Free Market Capitalism, too, as it enables the same minorities and wave of relativism for the sake of "freedom". A politician shouldn't work for the people just out of empathy. Empathy begets injustice and populism. I prefer to work for the principles and culture that forged the country we should (in theory) serve. If I was a politician, I would try and reform the whole economical structure to something more amiable to the Market, but not to the point of bowing down to it. Brazil suffered long enough with Heterodox approaches ever since Getúlio Vargas. Because it would bring us prosperity and enable us to continue the dream that is Brazil. It is the People's obligation to the Nation to give sweat and blood for its dream and get paid. The current system kind of fills that hole, but for the sake of the Market, not of the Nation. Their demands and needs are a consequence, not an objective. Ah, you are English. Well, provided we, Iberian descendants and you, Anglo-Saxons have different cultures (and, by consequence, different institutions), I cannot comment over your system. Parliamentary Monarchy worked (to the people AT THE TIME, won't fall into anachronism) in my country and we were at our prime [1]. We were the greatest power of Latin America and had a magnanimous leader. Now we are having difficulties on surpassing our Venezuelan neighbors due to their quiet hostility against us and we have a LARPing childish president with personal hostility to a LARPing corrupt left-wing peronist (Alberto Fernandez of Argentina). 1: Yes, the Emperor was a quite on the hands of the great landowners due to how shitty the Portuguese institutions were and our Emperor's war against Catholicism. And when our then princess signed the Golden Law, effectively ending slavery [2], these same landowners and the military wrestled power from our former Emperor and our Republic was born. A period where the oligarchs and landowners actually could reign supreme without an intervention. 2: And NO, NOT OUT OF ENGLISH PRESSURE. English pressure was on us until the Sexagenarian Law was passed. After that, the Black Movement, secretly aided by our Crown could effectively pressure the courts to pass the Golden Law and end slavery. About First-generation immigrants... they bring another culture and traditions with them. They may try and change themselves and contribute with their own, but they weren't raised and educated since childhood and they also weren't born into the land they migrated to. As I said, a banker like Joseph Safra contributed way too much to São Paulo's (and, by consequence, Brazil) economy, but he was born and raised to be a Lebanese, hence, never Brazilian. I AM doing anti-semitic jokes. As I also do racist and sexist ones. That doesn't mean I am anti-semitic or racist (although I am most definitely Sexist). I have no ill will towards Juice, for me they are people and nothing more, nothing less. They have an interesting nose and lots, but LOTS of money (okay, that's an stereotype I don't really believe, but still, I like to joke). Someone feeling attacked doesn't mean they actually are attacked. I never told you there is a current war against Soviet Union. It is dead. The military dictatorships were a product of the Cold War, so as the Communist Revolutions. The Soviets made satellitte states in Eastern Europe (Communist only in symbol), and the 'Muricans did it in Latin America and in Asia. Such to the point the Americans brought up actual Communist states (at the time), like Cambodia and China (effectively turning their back to Taiwan), while the Soviet Union could pass Socialism to Cuba, Vietnam (which isn't Socialist anymore outside of symbolism) and North Korea. Speaking a little more of my country, a lot of the military dictatorships, including my country were brought up by the military in their own country without American help, such as our. Ours was completely unjustified, though. Well, right, there were Soviet-backed guerilla movements, but their greater bulk was destroyed by Getulio Vargas, a technocrat that would sell his soul to the Axis if the Americans weren't a threat. Hm. Dictatorships have the unfortunate effect of splash damage. I plan on living in an isolated town in São Paulo, as our military dictatorship wasn't that much present in isolated towns, but in big cities. Ideology and Principles are two different things. A Principle is an idea and dream susceptible to changes to adapt for the age in a National sense. An Ideology is more than "just an idea", they are generally viewed as the solution of all problems they present, but their interlocutors are just unable to present a single flaw in their idea. It is like "Immanentizing the Eschaton", ergo, bringing the End (that is, Heaven) to the Mortal World. In few words, Ideologues propose changing the world with little to no consequence. An Ideological defense constitutes by saying that Capitalism solved all problems brought by Absolute Monarchy and Feudalism (proved wrong by creating new ones) and cannot actually be the subject to failure (proved wrong by the crisis of '29 and 2008); that the return of the Roman Empire under Fascism, purging Liberalism and Socialism will bring back Order (hypocritically proved wrong when Mussolini attempted against Order to topple the Monarchy); that Orthodox Marxist Socialism can actually work wonders in a modern economy (proved wrong when Lenin had to do the New Economical Policy). I would do about Libertarianism, but that is a cancer I must prepare better to fight without going full non-sequitur. That's why I am, like many Conservatives, comfortable with the world's injustices, I don't want new ones under the pretense of a false virtue. I don't want Fascism, Socialism, Libertariansm of shitty FTP and FPT. To be frank. I am not from an privileged caste of society nor I am rich. People discriminated me for my hair and facial traits (fitting of black heritage as I am Afro-Brazilian), while some wanted me to take positions of their own just because of my heritage or demographics. Isn't this discrimination? Thinking people should follow certain IDEOLOGIES just because of their demographics? But truly, not enough to make me feel bad for it. Feeling offended and attacked by society isn't a valid reason to change it. I think that, to treat minorities as human beings, it doesn't mean you should enable their every behavior, ignoring if it is Virtuous or Vicious. You will never bring change if you constantly hatemonger boomers and young men with that hypocrisy that everything not coming from the dominant castes is acceptable, because Trump and other "Fascists" only win because of: 1. stupid people 2. The Hatemonger you people promote against others that know your way is nothing but salty retaliation Change is welcome, for I am not a Trad, pragmatically. But you guys want it the fast way, like a revolution, and it never worked well. Shaming, gaslighting, rioting and cancelling aren't signs of superiority over the "uneducated and bigoted" "rabble". Just as I just think the Virtuous man stereotype of Latin America is stupid and twisted, the people's initiative as leaders is a stupid. As you said, no one would give up their power for the transition from Socialism to Communism. I would be pretty fine with Socialism if it wasn't from a Marxist approach. Said mediocrity might be the only bastion of virtue left in this society, so I cling for it. After the virtual threat is over, we can rebuild what was lost in this wave of progressiveness and prepare for the next.

you people have a dedication i can only admire even if i don't agree with it, your tenacidy is really inspiring

I think I've already said what needed to be said regarding nebelstern and I think it's pretty apparent to everyone that that particular mask of theirs has slipped (and now they're resorting to projection), but who am I to turn up a quick jab: such as the idea of comparing Russia just after the revolution (a pre-industrial nation) to a more developed economy like for example the US (or even Brazil) today as though they are directly comparable being laughable, considering the vast disparity of total wealth and economic development in those two nations respectively. Also a bonus that isn't really a jab but more of a clarification, I'm not an Orthodox Marxist (and I'm certainly not a Leninist), strictly speaking, considering my acceptance of an Anarchist definition of the state. Of course the term I'd use to describe myself isn't hugely important in the grand scheme of things, but when asked I tend to reply "Libertarian Socialist", though I won't turn my nose up at 'Communist', 'Anarchist', 'Anarchosyndicalist', or even just plain old 'Socialist'. My name is nice, too, though. @momoichi Forgot to tag you with my reply to your earlier post, but do you think there's anything in there so far, as for the veganism/meat thing?

oh i didnt see! ill go back :3! my reply will probz be pending as I'm not sure my brain is firm enough for a top tier debate right now, but we will see =w=!

oh im sorry! i ment name the trait humans have that gives them moral consideration that an animal lacks! i should have worded them better, sorry for the confusion! I'm not the brightest, so can i ask if your appealing to social contract? that because we humans have an unspoken 'dont hurt me and i wont hurt you' it separates us from the animals? if not i apologize, its a bit too abstract for me to be able to argue against properly ;w;

I might have to reread a little bit of theory to give a proper answer, but in the terms you present, I don't believe I am. Quickly skimming the wikipedia page now, and I don't think any of this Hobbesian stuff applies. Also I see Rawls mentioned, which would be a bad sign for me if I was arguing social contract, because 'veil of ignorance' would decimate any possible argument I'd have xD. Though certainly I am trying to isolate some abstract quality that I only appear to be able to see in humans. I'll have to see if I can reword or otherwise explicate it without changing the basic argument.

I don't think agreement even necessarily comes into it. I was thinking more the ability of an entity (in this case a human) to construct a system of morality (specifically one of formal ethics), and then based on that system of morality act with respect to that system. Even without agreeing with other entities on a collective system of morality, an entity would be deemed as worthy of moral consideration.

ok, i think i understand so if a human acts outside of this, does something immoral, are they devoid of all moral consideration, like we do with animals/

Not quite. We're quite capable of devising formal ethical systems and then either adhering to them or not adhering to them. It is the ability to do so, not a specific instance of doing so. It is a quality rather than an act, so for an entity to act immorally (according to the system of ethics that they had constructed) in a moment would not disqualify them from moral consideration. Now, as I foresee an obvious contention coming up from this, I do need to sort of make another clarification with regards to temporality to make sure that people in temporary comas, or people who are sleeping are not rendered also devoid of moral consideration. The ability to devise formal ethical systems and act with respect to those systems in the future would also qualify one for moral consideration, but I had a very difficult time of phrasing this concept so I initially just packed it into the word 'abstract'. EDIT: And consequently from having thought of this (though I admit I did not consider it initially), the ability to have devised formal ethical systems and act with respect to them in the past should also apply.